Answer ten of the following questions in essay form, using 300-600 words for each response. A printed copy of your exam is due in class Friday, December 9.
1) Identify ways that corporations are a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.
Corporations are a sustainability problem in many ways. They lobby the government to pass laws (or not pass them) in their favor, as was revealed in films we watched this semester such as Homo Toxicus. They use manufacturing practices that pollute the environment. At the same time, most corporations do not really care about their consumers, even when they say they do. They care most about maximizing profits, but, as The Corporation showed, other than pleasing their consumers enough so that they keep buying their products, corporations really do not care about the consumer. Corporate advertisements encourage people to consume more, as The Persuaders clearly showed. Consumption of goods is a sustainability problem since resources (such as wood, metal, etc.) are required to make the products. During the production of those goods, toxic chemicals may be released into the air or water. Then, the products must be shipped to stores, which may be halfway across the country. Clearly, the more goods that are consumed, the worse it is for the environment. These advertisements may also give the viewer the impression that the company is doing the right thing for the environment. If someone tries to reveal contradictions to these ads, like Akre and Wilson did with rBGH (The Corporation), industry will retaliate. Akre and Wilson lost their jobs. So did the Canadian scientists who did not want to approve growth hormones in cattle feed. Many of the activities that corporations engage in to produce goods harm the environment. Blue Gold stated the many environmental and social effects of bottled water. Bottled water is sold to the public as being better and healthier than tap water; however, some studies have shown that the opposite is actually the case. Even the results of scientific studies can be biased by corporations. If a corporate scientist finds results that are not what the company wants, that scientist might end up losing his or her job. Non-corporate studies may be counted as not credible, especially if an environmental organization is affiliated with the study.
3) Describe ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.
Mainstream media is a sustainability problem for several reasons. Oftentimes, the news will not report everything that is happening. For example, the recent climate change conference in Durban, South Africa received little media attention. What is reported does not always explain all the facts, or may misconstrue truths. The media should explain problems and solutions in great detail, instead of telling the story of the personal life of some celebrity. Too often, details that would help readers or viewers make an informed opinion are left out. The excerpts that we watched from comedy news shows revealed a few more ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem. Some news shows, notably Fox News, twist the truth and are very biased. The Yes Men and other comedy news shows offered an alternative to mainstream media as a source of news and pointed out the flaws in our media system. The Yes Men, especially, publicized various environmental disasters, like the Bhopal disaster and global warming. The mainstream media should be the ones calling attention to corporate greed, environmental problems, and scandals like Bhopal, instead of a group of people having to pull off stunts to call attention to the problem. Mainstream media also carries advertisements to bring the news to people cheaper. These advertisements encourage people to buy more goods, as was stated in The Persuaders and The Corporation. Advertisements used to just say: “buy this product! It’s better than product x for this reason!” like the Ivory soap ads from the late 1800’s. Now, advertisements are trying to sell brand loyalty and the “feel” of a company. In The Persuaders, the advertising campaign for a new Delta airline, “Song”, was revealed. The advertisers tried to sell the “soul” of the airline, as opposed to directly stating the rationality of choosing their airline over others. If people watch the nightly news, read the newspaper, or follow any other sort of mainstream media, they will run across advertisements, specifically designed to emotionally manipulate them into buying a product. Even the news on the internet has ads.
5) Discuss how Internet communication and other forms of new media are sustainability problems, as well as a means to sustainability solutions.
Internet communication and other forms of media are sustainability problems because they help spread false information and are not made from reusable materials. The internet especially can assist spreading of false information since no one can check every “fact” put on the internet. Rumors can spread through social media. The technology used for many forms of new media is constantly being developed, with the effect that people feel like they have to buy the new technologies in order to get the best benefit from them. Cell phones these days can do more than early computers could. People who have older phones may feel as if they are behind the times and need to buy a new smartphone to keep up. Sometimes, it is even a necessity to buy new technologies; while video games are not really a form of communication, one of the presentations in class focused on how gamers have to buy new equipment to play the newer games. A few years back, something similar happened with television during the transition to digital. While there were converters that people could buy for their old TVs, it was basically suggested that people go out and buy a new, better TV. Running the infrastructure needed for all of those new forms of electronic media requires energy. While many people do not think about it, others do; there is even a Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/unfriendcoal) telling Facebook to “unfriend coal” or run their servers and such off of renewable energy instead of coal. Internet communication can really help spread information about environmental problems, though. Movements can be organized through Facebook and similar media. Even just reading other people’s thoughts can inspire people to join a movement or make changes that will benefit the environment. They may find out about events and conferences via the internet, make plans to meet up and attend the environmental event through a Facebook event, email, or chat, and then discuss the event afterwards electronically, which will lead to more awareness of environmental problems and what they can do about them.
6) Identify key characteristics of the best environmental media (recognizing that few films or other media are likely to have more than a few of these characteristics). Reference examples from films we’ve seen this semester.
One key characteristic of the best environmental media is tying the problems discussed in the film to the environment. Too often, this is not done. While those of us who know a lot about environmental problems may be able to make the connections, those who do not would probably not realize that the environment is being affected as well as the people or whatever the film is focused on. Darwin’s Nightmare, which I watched for one of my film annotations, was an example of how not to have an effective environmental film. It was nearly all emotional draw. Other films with more science in them, like Blue Gold, create a better impression on the viewer and really help educate even skeptics. Explanations of the problems focused on in the film are another important trait that the best environmental media has. While some films lack this, and others tell it in a simple, boring way (like What’s on Your Plate?, although this film was geared more towards children so simple explanations would obviously have been great for the target audience). Solutions are one key part of environmental media that is nearly always left out. Blind Spot was a great film, but it would have been so much better if some solutions had been given. Six Degrees Can Change the World contained more solutions, even though it managed to be even more depressing than Blind Spot. Not being too negative in itself is one important trait that the best environmental media has. Blue Gold, towards the end, outlined solutions, some of them very ingenious. Probably most people, myself included, feel like they should just give up on a problem if no solutions are presented. Some of the films we watched this semester were so depressing that I had a hard time paying attention to them; and I would consider myself a pretty hard-core environmentalist. To really reach a mainstream audience, it is important to explain the gravity of a problem, backing it up with scientific facts, and then present solutions.
9). Many Americans are skeptical about climate change, and climate science. What do you think explains the skepticism? What do you think scientists should do to further enroll the public in concern about climate change? The articles listed below will provide material for your argument. Reference both articles in your answer.
I think that the reason why many Americans are skeptical about climate change is because there is so much misrepresentation in the media. I feel like it is almost “cool” in some parts of the US to not believe in global warming. Better explanations of the science are not enough—instead, I think that children should be educated from an early age what exactly science is and how to critically look at any debate and decide for yourself what is true and what is not. Cooney states that people become worried about environmental problems if they may have effects on human health. She also traces the trend towards apathy when people are faced with environmental problems. “His [Edward Maibach’s] research shows people are more apt to choose products as a solution rather than contact their elected representatives” [Cooney], mainly because they feel like they have no power to change the government or laws. Vergano writes that making climate change into a “story” will help get more people behind it. Stories, he states, get people behind a fact and retain the information. “People were more likely to agree with scientist's views about climate change after reading a story, rather than a list alone, regardless of which one [of several types of stories, with different heroes and villians] they read.” [Vergano] Of course, many scientists would argue that telling a story instead of just explaining the facts is unscientific. Both articles make good points. Getting the information across to everyone without making people feel depressed and apathetic is a difficult task. Cooney makes a great point in her article when she states that we need to examine social science, not just climate science, when trying to solve the problem of getting people to care about climate change. I think that scientists need to broaden their expertise. Great, respected scientists (like Carl Sagan) have gone out and told science as a story. Obviously, science can back up these stories. People also need to be told that they can make a difference by telling their congressmen and senators how they feel about climate change and what they think should be done about it.
10) Explain, from your point of view, what the US government should do to advance environmental sustainability. What should the US government not do? Together, your lists should include at least six items. Include concrete example to illustrate your points.
One thing that I believe the government should definitely not do is continue to provide subsidies for corn to be turned into ethanol. I know that some say that it burns cleaner and such, but some sources say that the amount of energy provided by ethanol is not much more or about the same as the amount of energy needed to produce that ethanol. Subsidies for anything unsustainable should be eliminated. Right now, big agribusiness is getting subsidies from the government. Their practices are not sustainable, and many of the heavily subsidized foods are unhealthy. What’s On Your Plate? did an excellent job of explaining this. To even the competition between small family farms and large corporate farms, subsidies could go towards smaller, localized, more sustainable agriculture. Also, money could be invested in renewable energy instead of in fossil fuels. The government needs to not ignore climate change any longer. While Six Degrees Could Change the World probably overstated the facts a bit, global warming is a huge threat to human health and society. Instead of refusing to sign treaties to reduce carbon emissions over petty arguments, the US government needs to take responsibility for the country being such a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. The government should also pass laws prohibiting lobbying, especially from corporations. As the film The Corporation demonstrated, corporations lobby against regulations that would improve sustainability and help the environment. The precautionary principle could be used as the model for assessing the environmental and health risks of various new technologies, like hydrofracking and GMOs. Corporations and inventors would have to prove that their products were safe before they could be sold. Job security for scientists, especially for corporate scientists, would likely advance environmental sustainability. If scientists feel like they have to produce certain results unless they want to lose their jobs, even if they try to be unbiased, it is likely that their results will be at least a little swayed. The Corporation went into some great examples of this.
11). Describe the key message of Six Degrees Can Change the World, providing illustrative examples from the film, then evaluate its strategy and effectiveness as environmental media.
The key message of Six Degrees Can Change the World is that the climate is warming and it will have widespread effects on the world’s ecosystems and natural processes. Ice will melt, the ocean will rise, and weather patterns will change. The film goes through different predictions of the rise in temperature and the effects each might have on life’s natural processes and humans themselves. Personally, I felt like the film was too dramatic and overstated the effects of global climate change. While some people might be moved by the film to learn more about climate change, others would probably be turned away and go read something on the internet full of false information about how and why global warming is a hoax. To have been more effective as environmental media, the film would need to be less dramatic in both the way the material is presented (the music, at least to me, the kind that would be in a horror film where scary things are happening) and the material itself. I would really have liked to have seen more science behind the “facts” that were presented. Also, many of the scenarios presented in the film are more based on hypotheses and we do not yet know what exactly will happen. Yes, New York City would almost definitely flood if the sea level rose a certain percentage, but it would probably not be so sudden in real life. More likely, there would be a gradual sea level rise and people would start migrating away from lower-lying areas; granted, this will likely lead to huge social and infrastructure problems, but the sea is not going to fill up suddenly like someone just turned the bath water on. Even to me, a lot of the changes that would happen if the world warmed X degrees were a bit overstated. During the Ice Age, climate fluctuated drastically during warming and cooling periods. While natural biological and ecological processes would probably be disrupted, I think that some would be able to change.
12) Identify ten developments (in education, law, media, etc) that you think would help mobilize greater public awareness of and commitment to environmental sustainability.
(1) Imagine if the news media, instead of reporting mainly sensational gossip, actually reported the news? Occupy Wall Street, a movement with many goals but mainly to raise awareness of income disparity and corporate influence on the government, was not in the mainstream news until seven hundred protesters were arrested in a single day. (2) Limiting the say that advertisers can have in media would also promote a greater public awareness of environmental sustainability, since advertisers can threaten to withdraw their ads if the media publishes something that might hurt their image. (3)If corporations were no longer considered people, and separate from their CEOs, shareholders, and so on, dodging corporate responsibility (like with the Bhopal Incident) would no longer be a possibility. (4) This suggestion might be a little far out, but maybe the environment could be granted personhood as well, or instead of, corporations. Obviously, this would be quite a big change, and would create many ethics decisions: if the environment is to have the same rights as a person, then are people allowed to take anything from the environment? Maybe if this was seriously proposed, people would realize how silly it is for any non-person entity to be granted “personhood” and immediately argue for corporations’ personhood to be revoked. (5) Limiting corporate influence on science would likely mean that there would be fewer controversies for citizens to search through when trying to do the right thing for the environment. (6) Basic science education would help people make better choices and realize when industry spokespeople are speaking nonsense. In the film Blue Vinyl, vinyl corporations claimed that vinyl is safe because it contains elements necessary for life and similar to table salt. (7) Basic education about social and cultural factors that impact how we think about environmental and other problems would also help. So would integrating environmental education into subjects such as history. Environmental problems are more than scientific problems; many other factors play a role. By “basic”, I mean more education of concrete facts starting in elementary school. Student should have a firm grounding in science and social science before leaving high school. (8) Civic education would help, too, as well as requiring students to participate and learn about government. If a group of high school students were to take on a small project to create change in their own community, they would likely grow up to be more willing to participate in government and feel like their opinions and values matter. (9)The news media should be more of a “watchdog” or the “fourth estate” (as Thomas Jefferson called the press. If there are rumors of some environmental scandal, be it a toxic product like vinyl or a chemical spill like what happened in Bhopal, the press should find out the truth and report about it. (10) News reporters should have a good social science and science background as well as a good writing background. While writing is important, understanding what is being written about is even more important.
13) Imagine that you are teaching high school seniors about environmental controversies. How would you advise them to make sense of the controversy around hydrofraking for natural gas? What questions would you encourage them to ask in analyzing all environmental controversies they encounter? In answering this question, you can draw on news accessible here: **http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/**.
I would advise anyone trying to make sense of the controversy surrounding hydrofracking to seek out multiple sources. Reading what each source says, and trying to make sense of what different sides of the debate are saying would be the next step. Next, I would ask the students to do some more research and see where each source is getting its funding from. What other corporations and organizations are linked to that source? Sometimes, it is as easy as poking around on that source’s website and finding links to particular corporations or organizations. I would remind the students that some organizations that sound environmental are actually made up of corporations; it is important to do the research! In particular, I would ask the students to explore the science behind hydrofracking. While some environmental controversies are hard to figure out from the science, I feel like most people that thoroughly read through and understand how hydrofracking works will realize that the risks of hydrofracking are high. I would encourage the high school seniors to ask the following questions in analyzing all the environmental controversies they encounter: 1.) Who is saying what? Where are they getting their funding from? 2.) What sources seem to draw on emotion rather than facts? Are the facts simplified or “dumbed down”? Finding the real scientific explanations behind something can prove more helpful than just looking at the quick summaries of information that might be available on both environmental and corporate websites. Often, there is truth in both sides, but the whole truth is not told. 3.) What sort of biases might I have, be it distrust of corporations, belief that ads tell the truth, or whatever? 4.) Realize that one source is not going to have the whole truth. As an example, I found this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/11/21/nb-shale-gas-cecelia-brooks-1203.html to offer a great explanation of why we should worry about hydrofracking. It does, however, rely too much on emotional draw to be a good source; I would ask my students to seek out other sources, as well. Another article: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/catell-with-care-fracking-can-work-in-ny-1.3368383 argues for hydrofracking. It even brings in environmentalism into its argument. However, its explanation of hydrofracking does not go into enough depth for me to see it as a credible resource. After a while, I think that the students would be able to figure out for themselves what makes a resource credible or not.
Transport: Food Miles details the transition to a food system based on fossil fuels and presents solutions. It goes into more depth than either The Pig Picture or The Meatrix and includes the many problems of our industrial farming economy, like cheap food (with the farmers not getting very much money), food safety, the environment, and so on. It is probably more appealing for teenagers and adults, since it is longer and involves more difficult concepts. Younger children would likely find it boring. The interviews with various farmers and others are very informative (since they are first person, real world examples), but the film would be much better with fewer interviews. The Pig Picture tells the story of hog farming realities versus what many people think of farming in general. The film states that pigs are smart animals and confinement is extremely stressful for them. Not only is factory farming unhealthy for the pigs, but it can also cause food poisoning since the factory farm environment is not clean. The Pig Picture explains with real-life images the downfalls of factory farming. Unlike a cartoon, the real images show that this is not just some fantasy; what is being shown in the film is real. It would appeal most to kids, especially since pigs are “cute” and the film ‘s information is told in a simple, easy-to-understand manner. The Meatrix is a cute cartoon film that also explains the realities and images of farming. It is very similar in content to The Pig Picture, except that it has a more dramatic music and narrative and more emotional appeal overall. While The Pig Picture is “cute” and would appeal to children that way, The Meatrix is probably almost more appealing to children. It really captures the viewer’s attention and draws them in. Both The Pig Picture and The Meatrix are a bit simple and leave out many details. Obviously, both are shorter than Transport: Food Miles, but they could utilize more facts. Transport: Food Miles was a bit boring, even for me, since there were too many interviews. It was, however, jam-packed with information. All three would educate people about the environmental and health problems. I think that the different styles would also reach different people, since everyone responds in different ways. Hopefully, all three would encourage people to seek out more information.
Answer ten of the following questions in essay form, using 300-600 words for each response. A printed copy of your exam is due in class Friday, December 9.
1) Identify ways that corporations are a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.
Corporations are a sustainability problem in many ways. They lobby the government to pass laws (or not pass them) in their favor, as was revealed in films we watched this semester such as Homo Toxicus. They use manufacturing practices that pollute the environment. At the same time, most corporations do not really care about their consumers, even when they say they do. They care most about maximizing profits, but, as The Corporation showed, other than pleasing their consumers enough so that they keep buying their products, corporations really do not care about the consumer.
Corporate advertisements encourage people to consume more, as The Persuaders clearly showed. Consumption of goods is a sustainability problem since resources (such as wood, metal, etc.) are required to make the products. During the production of those goods, toxic chemicals may be released into the air or water. Then, the products must be shipped to stores, which may be halfway across the country. Clearly, the more goods that are consumed, the worse it is for the environment. These advertisements may also give the viewer the impression that the company is doing the right thing for the environment. If someone tries to reveal contradictions to these ads, like Akre and Wilson did with rBGH (The Corporation), industry will retaliate. Akre and Wilson lost their jobs. So did the Canadian scientists who did not want to approve growth hormones in cattle feed.
Many of the activities that corporations engage in to produce goods harm the environment. Blue Gold stated the many environmental and social effects of bottled water. Bottled water is sold to the public as being better and healthier than tap water; however, some studies have shown that the opposite is actually the case.
Even the results of scientific studies can be biased by corporations. If a corporate scientist finds results that are not what the company wants, that scientist might end up losing his or her job. Non-corporate studies may be counted as not credible, especially if an environmental organization is affiliated with the study.
3) Describe ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.
Mainstream media is a sustainability problem for several reasons. Oftentimes, the news will not report everything that is happening. For example, the recent climate change conference in Durban, South Africa received little media attention. What is reported does not always explain all the facts, or may misconstrue truths. The media should explain problems and solutions in great detail, instead of telling the story of the personal life of some celebrity. Too often, details that would help readers or viewers make an informed opinion are left out.
The excerpts that we watched from comedy news shows revealed a few more ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem. Some news shows, notably Fox News, twist the truth and are very biased. The Yes Men and other comedy news shows offered an alternative to mainstream media as a source of news and pointed out the flaws in our media system. The Yes Men, especially, publicized various environmental disasters, like the Bhopal disaster and global warming. The mainstream media should be the ones calling attention to corporate greed, environmental problems, and scandals like Bhopal, instead of a group of people having to pull off stunts to call attention to the problem.
Mainstream media also carries advertisements to bring the news to people cheaper. These advertisements encourage people to buy more goods, as was stated in The Persuaders and The Corporation. Advertisements used to just say: “buy this product! It’s better than product x for this reason!” like the Ivory soap ads from the late 1800’s. Now, advertisements are trying to sell brand loyalty and the “feel” of a company. In The Persuaders, the advertising campaign for a new Delta airline, “Song”, was revealed. The advertisers tried to sell the “soul” of the airline, as opposed to directly stating the rationality of choosing their airline over others. If people watch the nightly news, read the newspaper, or follow any other sort of mainstream media, they will run across advertisements, specifically designed to emotionally manipulate them into buying a product. Even the news on the internet has ads.
5) Discuss how Internet communication and other forms of new media are sustainability problems, as well as a means to sustainability solutions.
Internet communication and other forms of media are sustainability problems because they help spread false information and are not made from reusable materials. The internet especially can assist spreading of false information since no one can check every “fact” put on the internet. Rumors can spread through social media. The technology used for many forms of new media is constantly being developed, with the effect that people feel like they have to buy the new technologies in order to get the best benefit from them. Cell phones these days can do more than early computers could. People who have older phones may feel as if they are behind the times and need to buy a new smartphone to keep up. Sometimes, it is even a necessity to buy new technologies; while video games are not really a form of communication, one of the presentations in class focused on how gamers have to buy new equipment to play the newer games. A few years back, something similar happened with television during the transition to digital. While there were converters that people could buy for their old TVs, it was basically suggested that people go out and buy a new, better TV.
Running the infrastructure needed for all of those new forms of electronic media requires energy. While many people do not think about it, others do; there is even a Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/unfriendcoal) telling Facebook to “unfriend coal” or run their servers and such off of renewable energy instead of coal.
Internet communication can really help spread information about environmental problems, though. Movements can be organized through Facebook and similar media. Even just reading other people’s thoughts can inspire people to join a movement or make changes that will benefit the environment. They may find out about events and conferences via the internet, make plans to meet up and attend the environmental event through a Facebook event, email, or chat, and then discuss the event afterwards electronically, which will lead to more awareness of environmental problems and what they can do about them.
6) Identify key characteristics of the best environmental media (recognizing that few films or other media are likely to have more than a few of these characteristics). Reference examples from films we’ve seen this semester.
One key characteristic of the best environmental media is tying the problems discussed in the film to the environment. Too often, this is not done. While those of us who know a lot about environmental problems may be able to make the connections, those who do not would probably not realize that the environment is being affected as well as the people or whatever the film is focused on. Darwin’s Nightmare, which I watched for one of my film annotations, was an example of how not to have an effective environmental film. It was nearly all emotional draw. Other films with more science in them, like Blue Gold, create a better impression on the viewer and really help educate even skeptics.
Explanations of the problems focused on in the film are another important trait that the best environmental media has. While some films lack this, and others tell it in a simple, boring way (like What’s on Your Plate?, although this film was geared more towards children so simple explanations would obviously have been great for the target audience).
Solutions are one key part of environmental media that is nearly always left out. Blind Spot was a great film, but it would have been so much better if some solutions had been given. Six Degrees Can Change the World contained more solutions, even though it managed to be even more depressing than Blind Spot. Not being too negative in itself is one important trait that the best environmental media has. Blue Gold, towards the end, outlined solutions, some of them very ingenious. Probably most people, myself included, feel like they should just give up on a problem if no solutions are presented. Some of the films we watched this semester were so depressing that I had a hard time paying attention to them; and I would consider myself a pretty hard-core environmentalist. To really reach a mainstream audience, it is important to explain the gravity of a problem, backing it up with scientific facts, and then present solutions.
9). Many Americans are skeptical about climate change, and climate science. What do you think explains the skepticism? What do you think scientists should do to further enroll the public in concern about climate change? The articles listed below will provide material for your argument. Reference both articles in your answer.
*The Perception Factor: Climate Change Gets Personal. (Environmental Health Perspectives, 11/1/2010)
**http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a484**
*Heroes wanted in climate science story (USA Today, 11/20/2010)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-11-05-climate-story_N.htm
I think that the reason why many Americans are skeptical about climate change is because there is so much misrepresentation in the media. I feel like it is almost “cool” in some parts of the US to not believe in global warming. Better explanations of the science are not enough—instead, I think that children should be educated from an early age what exactly science is and how to critically look at any debate and decide for yourself what is true and what is not.
Cooney states that people become worried about environmental problems if they may have effects on human health. She also traces the trend towards apathy when people are faced with environmental problems. “His [Edward Maibach’s] research shows people are more apt to choose products as a solution rather than contact their elected representatives” [Cooney], mainly because they feel like they have no power to change the government or laws.
Vergano writes that making climate change into a “story” will help get more people behind it. Stories, he states, get people behind a fact and retain the information. “People were more likely to agree with scientist's views about climate change after reading a story, rather than a list alone, regardless of which one [of several types of stories, with different heroes and villians] they read.” [Vergano] Of course, many scientists would argue that telling a story instead of just explaining the facts is unscientific.
Both articles make good points. Getting the information across to everyone without making people feel depressed and apathetic is a difficult task. Cooney makes a great point in her article when she states that we need to examine social science, not just climate science, when trying to solve the problem of getting people to care about climate change.
I think that scientists need to broaden their expertise. Great, respected scientists (like Carl Sagan) have gone out and told science as a story. Obviously, science can back up these stories. People also need to be told that they can make a difference by telling their congressmen and senators how they feel about climate change and what they think should be done about it.
10) Explain, from your point of view, what the US government should do to advance environmental sustainability. What should the US government not do? Together, your lists should include at least six items. Include concrete example to illustrate your points.
One thing that I believe the government should definitely not do is continue to provide subsidies for corn to be turned into ethanol. I know that some say that it burns cleaner and such, but some sources say that the amount of energy provided by ethanol is not much more or about the same as the amount of energy needed to produce that ethanol. Subsidies for anything unsustainable should be eliminated. Right now, big agribusiness is getting subsidies from the government. Their practices are not sustainable, and many of the heavily subsidized foods are unhealthy. What’s On Your Plate? did an excellent job of explaining this. To even the competition between small family farms and large corporate farms, subsidies could go towards smaller, localized, more sustainable agriculture.
Also, money could be invested in renewable energy instead of in fossil fuels. The government needs to not ignore climate change any longer. While Six Degrees Could Change the World probably overstated the facts a bit, global warming is a huge threat to human health and society. Instead of refusing to sign treaties to reduce carbon emissions over petty arguments, the US government needs to take responsibility for the country being such a significant contributor to greenhouse gases.
The government should also pass laws prohibiting lobbying, especially from corporations. As the film The Corporation demonstrated, corporations lobby against regulations that would improve sustainability and help the environment. The precautionary principle could be used as the model for assessing the environmental and health risks of various new technologies, like hydrofracking and GMOs. Corporations and inventors would have to prove that their products were safe before they could be sold.
Job security for scientists, especially for corporate scientists, would likely advance environmental sustainability. If scientists feel like they have to produce certain results unless they want to lose their jobs, even if they try to be unbiased, it is likely that their results will be at least a little swayed. The Corporation went into some great examples of this.
11). Describe the key message of Six Degrees Can Change the World, providing illustrative examples from the film, then evaluate its strategy and effectiveness as environmental media.
The key message of Six Degrees Can Change the World is that the climate is warming and it will have widespread effects on the world’s ecosystems and natural processes. Ice will melt, the ocean will rise, and weather patterns will change. The film goes through different predictions of the rise in temperature and the effects each might have on life’s natural processes and humans themselves.
Personally, I felt like the film was too dramatic and overstated the effects of global climate change. While some people might be moved by the film to learn more about climate change, others would probably be turned away and go read something on the internet full of false information about how and why global warming is a hoax. To have been more effective as environmental media, the film would need to be less dramatic in both the way the material is presented (the music, at least to me, the kind that would be in a horror film where scary things are happening) and the material itself. I would really have liked to have seen more science behind the “facts” that were presented. Also, many of the scenarios presented in the film are more based on hypotheses and we do not yet know what exactly will happen. Yes, New York City would almost definitely flood if the sea level rose a certain percentage, but it would probably not be so sudden in real life. More likely, there would be a gradual sea level rise and people would start migrating away from lower-lying areas; granted, this will likely lead to huge social and infrastructure problems, but the sea is not going to fill up suddenly like someone just turned the bath water on.
Even to me, a lot of the changes that would happen if the world warmed X degrees were a bit overstated. During the Ice Age, climate fluctuated drastically during warming and cooling periods. While natural biological and ecological processes would probably be disrupted, I think that some would be able to change.
12) Identify ten developments (in education, law, media, etc) that you think would help mobilize greater public awareness of and commitment to environmental sustainability.
(1) Imagine if the news media, instead of reporting mainly sensational gossip, actually reported the news? Occupy Wall Street, a movement with many goals but mainly to raise awareness of income disparity and corporate influence on the government, was not in the mainstream news until seven hundred protesters were arrested in a single day. (2) Limiting the say that advertisers can have in media would also promote a greater public awareness of environmental sustainability, since advertisers can threaten to withdraw their ads if the media publishes something that might hurt their image. (3)If corporations were no longer considered people, and separate from their CEOs, shareholders, and so on, dodging corporate responsibility (like with the Bhopal Incident) would no longer be a possibility. (4) This suggestion might be a little far out, but maybe the environment could be granted personhood as well, or instead of, corporations. Obviously, this would be quite a big change, and would create many ethics decisions: if the environment is to have the same rights as a person, then are people allowed to take anything from the environment? Maybe if this was seriously proposed, people would realize how silly it is for any non-person entity to be granted “personhood” and immediately argue for corporations’ personhood to be revoked. (5) Limiting corporate influence on science would likely mean that there would be fewer controversies for citizens to search through when trying to do the right thing for the environment.
(6) Basic science education would help people make better choices and realize when industry spokespeople are speaking nonsense. In the film Blue Vinyl, vinyl corporations claimed that vinyl is safe because it contains elements necessary for life and similar to table salt. (7) Basic education about social and cultural factors that impact how we think about environmental and other problems would also help. So would integrating environmental education into subjects such as history. Environmental problems are more than scientific problems; many other factors play a role. By “basic”, I mean more education of concrete facts starting in elementary school. Student should have a firm grounding in science and social science before leaving high school. (8) Civic education would help, too, as well as requiring students to participate and learn about government. If a group of high school students were to take on a small project to create change in their own community, they would likely grow up to be more willing to participate in government and feel like their opinions and values matter.
(9)The news media should be more of a “watchdog” or the “fourth estate” (as Thomas Jefferson called the press. If there are rumors of some environmental scandal, be it a toxic product like vinyl or a chemical spill like what happened in Bhopal, the press should find out the truth and report about it. (10) News reporters should have a good social science and science background as well as a good writing background. While writing is important, understanding what is being written about is even more important.
13) Imagine that you are teaching high school seniors about environmental controversies. How would you advise them to make sense of the controversy around hydrofraking for natural gas? What questions would you encourage them to ask in analyzing all environmental controversies they encounter? In answering this question, you can draw on news accessible here: **http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/**.
I would advise anyone trying to make sense of the controversy surrounding hydrofracking to seek out multiple sources. Reading what each source says, and trying to make sense of what different sides of the debate are saying would be the next step. Next, I would ask the students to do some more research and see where each source is getting its funding from. What other corporations and organizations are linked to that source? Sometimes, it is as easy as poking around on that source’s website and finding links to particular corporations or organizations. I would remind the students that some organizations that sound environmental are actually made up of corporations; it is important to do the research!
In particular, I would ask the students to explore the science behind hydrofracking. While some environmental controversies are hard to figure out from the science, I feel like most people that thoroughly read through and understand how hydrofracking works will realize that the risks of hydrofracking are high.
I would encourage the high school seniors to ask the following questions in analyzing all the environmental controversies they encounter: 1.) Who is saying what? Where are they getting their funding from? 2.) What sources seem to draw on emotion rather than facts? Are the facts simplified or “dumbed down”? Finding the real scientific explanations behind something can prove more helpful than just looking at the quick summaries of information that might be available on both environmental and corporate websites. Often, there is truth in both sides, but the whole truth is not told. 3.) What sort of biases might I have, be it distrust of corporations, belief that ads tell the truth, or whatever? 4.) Realize that one source is not going to have the whole truth.
As an example, I found this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/11/21/nb-shale-gas-cecelia-brooks-1203.html to offer a great explanation of why we should worry about hydrofracking. It does, however, rely too much on emotional draw to be a good source; I would ask my students to seek out other sources, as well. Another article: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/catell-with-care-fracking-can-work-in-ny-1.3368383 argues for hydrofracking. It even brings in environmentalism into its argument. However, its explanation of hydrofracking does not go into enough depth for me to see it as a credible resource. After a while, I think that the students would be able to figure out for themselves what makes a resource credible or not.
15) Assess how each of these videos about problems with our food system would likely impact viewers. What message is delivered by each film? What does each accomplish, and not? Which audiences would be most responsive?
Transport: Food Miles
**http://video.pbs.org/video/1362891727/**
The Pig Picture
**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aukdZWNvDMs**
The Meatrix
**http://www.themeatrix.com/**
Transport: Food Miles details the transition to a food system based on fossil fuels and presents solutions. It goes into more depth than either The Pig Picture or The Meatrix and includes the many problems of our industrial farming economy, like cheap food (with the farmers not getting very much money), food safety, the environment, and so on. It is probably more appealing for teenagers and adults, since it is longer and involves more difficult concepts. Younger children would likely find it boring. The interviews with various farmers and others are very informative (since they are first person, real world examples), but the film would be much better with fewer interviews.
The Pig Picture tells the story of hog farming realities versus what many people think of farming in general. The film states that pigs are smart animals and confinement is extremely stressful for them. Not only is factory farming unhealthy for the pigs, but it can also cause food poisoning since the factory farm environment is not clean. The Pig Picture explains with real-life images the downfalls of factory farming. Unlike a cartoon, the real images show that this is not just some fantasy; what is being shown in the film is real. It would appeal most to kids, especially since pigs are “cute” and the film ‘s information is told in a simple, easy-to-understand manner.
The Meatrix is a cute cartoon film that also explains the realities and images of farming. It is very similar in content to The Pig Picture, except that it has a more dramatic music and narrative and more emotional appeal overall. While The Pig Picture is “cute” and would appeal to children that way, The Meatrix is probably almost more appealing to children. It really captures the viewer’s attention and draws them in.
Both The Pig Picture and The Meatrix are a bit simple and leave out many details. Obviously, both are shorter than Transport: Food Miles, but they could utilize more facts. Transport: Food Miles was a bit boring, even for me, since there were too many interviews. It was, however, jam-packed with information. All three would educate people about the environmental and health problems. I think that the different styles would also reach different people, since everyone responds in different ways. Hopefully, all three would encourage people to seek out more information.